"Regulate" in the sense of causing it to be regular. All of the writings on that from the time it was written deal with how a state cannot discriminate against the goods from other states nor can they interfere with the movement of goods through them to another state. It did not, when it was written, mean that the Federal Congress got to write billions of rules about every aspect of your life simply because you deal daily with stuff that has moved across state lines.
Wow. Just wow. This attitude simply requires Godwin as that is exactly the attitudes that allowed the Holocaust to flourish. "Well, I don't care if it is wrong (morally/ethically) as that is not my concern. My sole concern is German law." Wow, just wow.
Wrong. In the US we, personally, take our business elsewhere if we, personally, don't like the service we get. We also mention the poor service to our circle of acquaintances and sometimes they agree with us and sometimes they don't. There are plenty of businesses I don't deal with because of various policies or level of service I've received. Maybe Europeans could try that out as well. The personal responsibility and choice thing.
Which companies are "making" you buy their products?
I know mine is an unpopular opinion, but corporations are groups of people united for the purpose of producing and selling. People have the right (at least in the US) to speak freely and that includes enticing others to buy their products. We generally refer to that as advertising.
Would you rather the government controlled every bit of information you are allowed to see?
If you never opened a Facebook account, then Facebook CANNOT have violated your privacy. There is no way that Facebook is running bots collecting data from everyone's computer and such. That means that if you never told Facebook about yourself, then it was your friends and family that did so and they are the ones that violated your privacy, not Facebook.
Exactly. You are claiming that nature produced something unnatural. You claim that homo sapiens are a product of the natural forces of evolution and then you claim that homo sapiens are not natural. You cannot have it both ways.
So, you are claiming that nature created something unnatural. What other species did nature allow to evolve to the point that they are no longer "natural?"
And what do you have against people investing overseas? Do you not like those foreigners over there?
Did this hypothetical American citizen transfer this money before or after taxes were paid to the US. In other words, did he become rich by reaping large profits inside the US and paid the taxes as required by law and then transfer some of his money? I can see the US government having some interest in where that money was transferred because they don't want it going to support terrorist groups and such but outside of that, why should the US government care what happens to it or what it is used for as long as it is not brought back into the US? I'll argue that converting the cash to goods and bringing the goods back is the same as bringing the cash back.
I am having a difficult time understanding whether you are part of the intelligent design or God created it mindset or have some twisted sense of evolution. You say humans are not naturally produced but you aren't offering any evidence that new humans are being produced other than via genetic combination after sexual pairing (or laboratory reproductions thereof). Are you claiming that humans are actually being produced in the factories of some advanced race? I know Frank Herbert had one of his civilizations using human wombs as factories but that is somewhat unrelated to this topic.
My understanding is that our understanding of natural selection being the mechanism behind evolution was theorized less than two centuries ago so how could we have possibly rid ourselves of that notion before we ever thought of it?
As for part b of your reply. You make the claim that what humans are doing to the environment is unnatural. What proof do you have that humans are not a product of nature? I asked how nature is capable of producing something not part of nature. Your "answer" seems to be making the claim that humans weren't produced by nature. If that is truly your position please state it clearly.
In the meantime, I am still interested in response to the question I asked.
If we are "naturally" produced instead of "godmade" then isn't anything we make and put there, by definition, natural and, therefore, also what nature put there.
Nope. Trump wasn't involved at all. However, the Obama administration did argue twice (via Elena Kagan the first) that the government definitely has the right to stop the publication of any material it deems problematic. Even if that material is simply a book telling the unflattering truth about a politician.
Slashdot in general has decried the SCOTUS decision that said "No, people do not lose their First Amendment rights simply because they pooled their money to speak."
I would argue that in a community property state, the account is mutually owned and does have more than one authorized user, especially if it can be used to incur debts and/or transfer money to other property.
Further, I would argue that this should be the norm for any marriage regardless of jurisdiction. Seriously, the whole point of being married is to become one, in all ways imaginable.
Since when does any shareholder ever decide what internal projects get worked on?
Since "the real issue is that these airlines are usually publicly owned" then the solution is to have government announce regulations that all airlines must be owned by a single person? Or maybe family owned or even some partnerships? That will solve the problem because you won't have a bunch of nameless, faceless people begging for a larger quarterly payout (dividend) but will instead have one person (or a handful of people) demanding a larger quarterly payout (profit)..
Great. Check back in a few months and you'll have all that. You can even use that to compare how all the organizations did during the vent itself and determine which ones were most accurate most quickly and after a few of these you might start seeing a pattern and then you could use that information to decide which organizations might be worth listening to during the next event. Or not.
Suspend their First Amendment rights... is it really worth the cost of a lengthy trial for this or should we just let people determine for themselves whom to trust?
Do we also shut down Mother Jones, Sierra Club and PETA on the same grounds?
I think the question was asking for specifics regarding this particular event, not hypothetical situations that will most likely never happen.
I see plenty of ways that damage is being done through "journalism" every day and it is mostly from the well-heeled, left leaning "big boys". Nearly every time one of them repeats a politicians crap about "preventing future tragedies" they are damaging our freedom. Need to prevent a future shooting. Easy. Pass a law that says I have to get permission from the government to give my son a gun. Except the most recent shooting we are trying "to prevent" was committed by someone who killed to get his guns and never even thought about subjecting himself to a background check. Neither will 80% or more of all shooters. But we have to do SOMETHING.
but...but...but... When a group of US citizens (some wealthy, some not so much) united together for the purpose of producing some media not favorable to a certain politician here in the US, it seemed like the consensus here is that only the "big boys" have the right to be called "the press" and only they are the ones allowed to speak about anything.
Except that said thinning of shells was a load of crap and never proven to have actually been caused by DDT and the waning bird populations caused by the supposedly thinning eggshells weren't actually declining but were, in fact, increasing.
The closest actual causation link might have been declining populations of animals that fed mostly on mosquitos but that wasn't happening either because there were not and are not any such animal populations.
Oh yeah. Using a relative small amount spread around the environment is EXACTLY the same thing as ingesting large amounts daily.
Le's use that reasoning to set the safe level of clean water ingestion. A few years back, somebody drank huge amounts of water (many gallons in a day) and died. Therefore, it is not safe to drink any amount of water nor any other liquid having water as an ingredient.
Does it now sound a bit retarded to not distinguish between none, a little and too much.
You, keep regurgitating the same old crap and eventually it won't be crap. But you are on the side that gets to claim the victory for defeating yet another good thing from modernization happening, so that must be a big plus for you in the "feels good, warm and fuzzies" column.
This is a totally fraudulent piece of research because those all melted years ago. At least Al Gore's buddies were mumbling something about that at their UN conferences.
"BUt laws gte passed based on alarmist media stories."
Exactly. That is the only reason we are currently discussing any increase in so-called "gun control" here in the US. Far more people are killed by alcohol misuse each year than guns, far more more by tobacco yet nobody is parading any survivors from those things and begging for "something to be done".
Yes, I do. But judging on skin color and language skills, we don't seem to have many of them in my area, at least not working in the places you've mentioned. Definitely none employed at the shop where I have my work done. There's only 3 guys there and they are definitely not form south of the border.
Seeing as how the top 10% of earners are already paying 90% of the income tax in the USA, taxing them "as much as the middle class" would mean lowering the amount we tax them. Or did you mean raising taxes on the other 43% of earners to bring "level the playing field"?
Oh, the coward was right. I shouldn't have asked for any ciphering to be done.
Slashdot Mirror
"Regulate" in the sense of causing it to be regular. All of the writings on that from the time it was written deal with how a state cannot discriminate against the goods from other states nor can they interfere with the movement of goods through them to another state. It did not, when it was written, mean that the Federal Congress got to write billions of rules about every aspect of your life simply because you deal daily with stuff that has moved across state lines.
Wow. Just wow. This attitude simply requires Godwin as that is exactly the attitudes that allowed the Holocaust to flourish. "Well, I don't care if it is wrong (morally/ethically) as that is not my concern. My sole concern is German law." Wow, just wow.
Wrong. In the US we, personally, take our business elsewhere if we, personally, don't like the service we get. We also mention the poor service to our circle of acquaintances and sometimes they agree with us and sometimes they don't. There are plenty of businesses I don't deal with because of various policies or level of service I've received. Maybe Europeans could try that out as well. The personal responsibility and choice thing.
Which companies are "making" you buy their products?
I know mine is an unpopular opinion, but corporations are groups of people united for the purpose of producing and selling. People have the right (at least in the US) to speak freely and that includes enticing others to buy their products. We generally refer to that as advertising.
Would you rather the government controlled every bit of information you are allowed to see?
If you never opened a Facebook account, then Facebook CANNOT have violated your privacy. There is no way that Facebook is running bots collecting data from everyone's computer and such. That means that if you never told Facebook about yourself, then it was your friends and family that did so and they are the ones that violated your privacy, not Facebook.
Exactly. You are claiming that nature produced something unnatural. You claim that homo sapiens are a product of the natural forces of evolution and then you claim that homo sapiens are not natural. You cannot have it both ways.
So, you are claiming that nature created something unnatural. What other species did nature allow to evolve to the point that they are no longer "natural?"
And what do you have against people investing overseas? Do you not like those foreigners over there?
Did this hypothetical American citizen transfer this money before or after taxes were paid to the US. In other words, did he become rich by reaping large profits inside the US and paid the taxes as required by law and then transfer some of his money? I can see the US government having some interest in where that money was transferred because they don't want it going to support terrorist groups and such but outside of that, why should the US government care what happens to it or what it is used for as long as it is not brought back into the US? I'll argue that converting the cash to goods and bringing the goods back is the same as bringing the cash back.
I am having a difficult time understanding whether you are part of the intelligent design or God created it mindset or have some twisted sense of evolution. You say humans are not naturally produced but you aren't offering any evidence that new humans are being produced other than via genetic combination after sexual pairing (or laboratory reproductions thereof). Are you claiming that humans are actually being produced in the factories of some advanced race? I know Frank Herbert had one of his civilizations using human wombs as factories but that is somewhat unrelated to this topic.
My understanding is that our understanding of natural selection being the mechanism behind evolution was theorized less than two centuries ago so how could we have possibly rid ourselves of that notion before we ever thought of it?
As for part b of your reply. You make the claim that what humans are doing to the environment is unnatural. What proof do you have that humans are not a product of nature? I asked how nature is capable of producing something not part of nature. Your "answer" seems to be making the claim that humans weren't produced by nature. If that is truly your position please state it clearly.
In the meantime, I am still interested in response to the question I asked.
If we are "naturally" produced instead of "godmade" then isn't anything we make and put there, by definition, natural and, therefore, also what nature put there.
Nope. Trump wasn't involved at all. However, the Obama administration did argue twice (via Elena Kagan the first) that the government definitely has the right to stop the publication of any material it deems problematic. Even if that material is simply a book telling the unflattering truth about a politician.
Slashdot in general has decried the SCOTUS decision that said "No, people do not lose their First Amendment rights simply because they pooled their money to speak."
I would argue that in a community property state, the account is mutually owned and does have more than one authorized user, especially if it can be used to incur debts and/or transfer money to other property.
Further, I would argue that this should be the norm for any marriage regardless of jurisdiction. Seriously, the whole point of being married is to become one, in all ways imaginable.
Since when does any shareholder ever decide what internal projects get worked on?
Since "the real issue is that these airlines are usually publicly owned" then the solution is to have government announce regulations that all airlines must be owned by a single person? Or maybe family owned or even some partnerships? That will solve the problem because you won't have a bunch of nameless, faceless people begging for a larger quarterly payout (dividend) but will instead have one person (or a handful of people) demanding a larger quarterly payout (profit)..
Great. Check back in a few months and you'll have all that. You can even use that to compare how all the organizations did during the vent itself and determine which ones were most accurate most quickly and after a few of these you might start seeing a pattern and then you could use that information to decide which organizations might be worth listening to during the next event. Or not.
Suspend their First Amendment rights... is it really worth the cost of a lengthy trial for this or should we just let people determine for themselves whom to trust?
Do we also shut down Mother Jones, Sierra Club and PETA on the same grounds?
I think the question was asking for specifics regarding this particular event, not hypothetical situations that will most likely never happen.
I see plenty of ways that damage is being done through "journalism" every day and it is mostly from the well-heeled, left leaning "big boys". Nearly every time one of them repeats a politicians crap about "preventing future tragedies" they are damaging our freedom. Need to prevent a future shooting. Easy. Pass a law that says I have to get permission from the government to give my son a gun. Except the most recent shooting we are trying "to prevent" was committed by someone who killed to get his guns and never even thought about subjecting himself to a background check. Neither will 80% or more of all shooters. But we have to do SOMETHING.
but...but...but... When a group of US citizens (some wealthy, some not so much) united together for the purpose of producing some media not favorable to a certain politician here in the US, it seemed like the consensus here is that only the "big boys" have the right to be called "the press" and only they are the ones allowed to speak about anything.
Why is this different?
Except that said thinning of shells was a load of crap and never proven to have actually been caused by DDT and the waning bird populations caused by the supposedly thinning eggshells weren't actually declining but were, in fact, increasing.
The closest actual causation link might have been declining populations of animals that fed mostly on mosquitos but that wasn't happening either because there were not and are not any such animal populations.
Oh yeah. Using a relative small amount spread around the environment is EXACTLY the same thing as ingesting large amounts daily.
Le's use that reasoning to set the safe level of clean water ingestion. A few years back, somebody drank huge amounts of water (many gallons in a day) and died. Therefore, it is not safe to drink any amount of water nor any other liquid having water as an ingredient.
Does it now sound a bit retarded to not distinguish between none, a little and too much.
You, keep regurgitating the same old crap and eventually it won't be crap. But you are on the side that gets to claim the victory for defeating yet another good thing from modernization happening, so that must be a big plus for you in the "feels good, warm and fuzzies" column.
Ice cores from a glacier in the Himalayas?
This is a totally fraudulent piece of research because those all melted years ago. At least Al Gore's buddies were mumbling something about that at their UN conferences.
And running adds asking people to cut back is the same as attempting to outlaw the use in what way?
"BUt laws gte passed based on alarmist media stories."
Exactly. That is the only reason we are currently discussing any increase in so-called "gun control" here in the US. Far more people are killed by alcohol misuse each year than guns, far more more by tobacco yet nobody is parading any survivors from those things and begging for "something to be done".
Yes, I do. But judging on skin color and language skills, we don't seem to have many of them in my area, at least not working in the places you've mentioned. Definitely none employed at the shop where I have my work done. There's only 3 guys there and they are definitely not form south of the border.
Seeing as how the top 10% of earners are already paying 90% of the income tax in the USA, taxing them "as much as the middle class" would mean lowering the amount we tax them. Or did you mean raising taxes on the other 43% of earners to bring "level the playing field"?
Oh, the coward was right. I shouldn't have asked for any ciphering to be done.